Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
What I'd like to know is what these DLs are supposed to be doing, that mainstream is failing to understand? No discharges happening, no 'explosions' happening, so what exactly do we need them for?
 
And I'm not reading a piece from a woo site, when we have an in-house PA who did his PhD on double layers! Given how much else that lot have misunderstood in their efforts to force fit everything into a Velikovskian worldview, I think that is wise.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
from Tusenfem

Not for me Tusenfem but for JD116!!! oh and the casual lurkers
Click to expand...
tusenfem said:
most of the lurkers know
it is not my job to educate you, when it has been clear you are a bad student
Click to expand...

Sorry JD116, Tusenfem says no to learning.
 
jonesdave116 said:
And what, pray tell, have flux tubes got to do with non-existent DLs at comets?

And I'm not reading a piece from a woo site, when we have an in-house PA who did his PhD on double layers! Given how much else that lot have misunderstood in their efforts to force fit everything into a Velikovskian worldview, I think that is wise.
Click to expand...

Ok, ask Tusenfem why there would NOT be any double layers at 67P. See if you can hear the sound of silence from the PhD man who can/could tell you. Not the like of Hannes Alfvén and Irving Langmuir in relation to plasma (Hot ionised gas), double layers and Birkeland currents.

No made up Velikovskian woo there 'ol mate! JUST cold hard science :D
 
Sol88 said:
Ok, ask Tusenfem why there would NOT be any double layers at 67P. See if you can hear the sound of silence from the PhD man who can/could tell you. Not the like of Hannes Alfvén and Irving Langmuir in relation to plasma (Hot ionised gas), double layers and Birkeland currents.

No made up Velikovskian woo there 'ol mate! JUST cold hard science :D
Click to expand...

Sorry, where were these double layers detected? What were the conditions that led to them? What did they do?
And you'll find Alfvén & Mendis only ever suggested DLs as a 'possibility' at comets. None have ever been observed.
Not that I want to blow his trumpet for him (ooer missus!), but I would think somebody who did their PhD on DLs, and worked in Alfvén's lab, would bleedin' know one when he sees one. So, why is he (and others) not seeing them, but you are?
 
I'll make the following comment only for Sol's famed 'lurkers', seeing as Sol isn't actually arguing the case:

Magnetic reconnection; now, wasn't C-G Falthammar a co-author of Alfvén's on a number of occasions? What were his views on magnetic reconnection? Here are two papers of his where he explicitly talks about reconnection as if there is no problem whatsoever with it:

On the Concept of Moving Magnetic Field Lines
Falthammar, C-G. & Mozer, F.S. (2007)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007EO150002/pdf

To quote from the above:
In fact, the most interesting plasma physics occurs precisely where and because this equation is not satisfied, such as the auroral acceleration region, magnetic field reconnection, turbulence, shocks, and many wave modes.
Click to expand...

Whoops, there he is, explicitly calling it 'magnetic reconnection'! Not 'circuit reconnection' or 'particle reconnection'. His co-author on that comment piece wrote a paper entitled 'Criteria for and statistics of electron diffusion regions associated with subsolar magnetic field reconnection.'
Wonder what Alfvén would have thought? "Naughty old Carl-Gunne has gone over to the dark side"? Or, more likely, "Carl-Gunne is following the evidence from experiment and observation. Good boy."

See also:

Magnetic-field aligned electric fields in collisionless space plasmas – a brief review
Falthammar, C-G. (2004)
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.627.1110&rep=rep1&type=pdf
 
Last edited:
Asked by Sol a little while back:
Tusenfem, are you able to give me a feel for how strong the strong current flowing along the centre of the tube is?
Click to expand...

Quite by accident, I found this:

Multi-point observations of the Hall electromagnetic field and secondary island formation during magnetic reconnection
Eastwood, J. P. et al (2007)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006JA012158/full

In the very last part of the paper [48]:

Second, electric fields of the order of 100 mV m−1 were observed in the center of the flux rope..............A separate investigation has shown that this may not be a unique observation; electric fields of 60–80 mV m−1, but with different structure, have been seen inside another small-scale flux rope.
Click to expand...
 
jonesdave116 said:
I'll make the following comment only for Sol's famed 'lurkers', seeing as Sol isn't actually arguing the case:

Magnetic reconnection; now, wasn't C-G Falthammar a co-author of Alfvén's on a number of occasions? What were his views on magnetic reconnection? Here are two papers of his where he explicitly talks about reconnection as if there is no problem whatsoever with it:

On the Concept of Moving Magnetic Field Lines
Falthammar, C-G. & Mozer, F.S. (2007)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007EO150002/pdf

To quote from the above:


Whoops, there he is, explicitly calling it 'magnetic reconnection'! Not 'circuit reconnection' or 'particle reconnection'. His co-author on that comment piece wrote a paper entitled 'Criteria for and statistics of electron diffusion regions associated with subsolar magnetic field reconnection.'
Wonder what Alfvén would have thought? "Naughty old Carl-Gunne has gone over to the dark side"? Or, more likely, "Carl-Gunne is following the evidence from experiment and observation. Good boy."

See also:

Magnetic-field aligned electric fields in collisionless space plasmas – a brief review
Falthammar, C-G. (2004)
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.627.1110&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Click to expand...

How, JD116, is the magnetic field formed and sustained?

HINT

Are you starting to get the idea now?
 
Last edited:
Magnetic-field aligned electric fields in collisionless space plasmas – a brief review
Falthammar, C-G. (2004)
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
Click to expand...

The nonexistence of parallel electric fields was later challenged by Alfven, who sug* gested that auroral primary electrons may gain their energy from falling through a paral* lel potential drop above the ionosphere and described how parallel electric fields can 'cut' magnetic field lines. Alfven's idea was contrary to contemporary beliefs and was almost universally disregarded, but when in situ measurements in space became possible, they brought the first indications that Alfven might be right. Since then, an overwhelming amount of empirical data have proven that magnetic field aligned electric fields exist and are of key importance in the physics of auroras [Falthammar, 2004], in magnetic field reconnection [Mozer, 2005], in shocks [Mozer et ai, 2006], and in plasma turbulance and many wave modes. Alfven, who had introduced the concept, became a strong critic of 'moving' magnetic field lines [Alfven, 1976], especially in his later years. He warned against use of the concepts of 'frozen-in' and 'moving' mag* netic field lines for the reasons that are emphasized above. The basic reason for these difficulties with 'moving' magnetic field lines is, of course, that motion of magnetic field lines is inher* ently meaningless. The magnetic field B is a vector field defined as a function of space coordinates and time. At a fixed time, one may trace a field line from any given point in space. But that field line has no identity, and in a time-dependent magnetic field it cannot be identified with any field line at a different time, except by one convention or another. As we have seen, such conventions are fraught with pitfalls and should only be used with utmost care lest they lead to erroneous conclusions. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, moving magnetic field lines are "unsafe at any speed.
Click to expand...

Tusenfem?
 
Sol88 said:
and why cant we just call magnetic flux ropes, force free field aligned currents, "stringy things" by what they really are BIRKELAND CURRENTS in honour of the man that discovered them?
Click to expand...

Okay, a short one answer, because I am sick, and so my denglish will not be so good, yes, but as a nativity speeker you understand, no?

First of all not all flux ropes are force free (wow did not see that one come did you) and by the way the flux tube are force free and NOT the currents, but hey, who cares about the details? It's all alternative facts, isn't it?

Birkeland was a great scientist, misjudged by his contemporaries, mostly because of Sydney Chapman. Unforturnately for Birkeland, the existence of the currents he proposed, and now carry his name, were not discovered until after his death. Birkeland is an important person in my work, however not in cometary science. I give talks about the nothern lights in which he plays a prominent role. Also, I am offering school kids to do a summer course at our institute which is called "in the footsteps of Birkeland" in which I let them work with ground magnetometers, aurora camera images, spacecraft data, to try and find out for themselves how Birkeland was working and got to his conclusions.

So, yeah, I and the whole of magnetospheric physics community is greatly ignoring Kristian Birkeland, which is clear from the list of 147 peer-reviewed papers with Birkeland current in the title (which increases to 450 if you search in abstracts).

Birkeland currents are a special kind of field aligned currents which flow in the Earth's magnetosphere, and therefore, purist as I am, I am not calling any field aligned current a Birkeland current. You may not like that, and I don't frakking care.

Thus, there is no mention of Birkeland in my review paper on currents in cometary comae. I know that the EU would love to have his "charged comet" model to be correct, which it is not. I could have put it next to the "ether vortices rubbing together" in my paper, but why would I. Many a great scientist makes mistakes, which don't have to be pointed out.

So, am I sheeple, am I herd, maybe I are. But I also no you forget will what I say quiet quick, and ask again and again same questions.
 
Sol88 said:
Ok, ask Tusenfem why there would NOT be any double layers at 67P. See if you can hear the sound of silence from the PhD man who can/could tell you. Not the like of Hannes Alfvén and Irving Langmuir in relation to plasma (Hot ionised gas), double layers and Birkeland currents.

No made up Velikovskian woo there 'ol mate! JUST cold hard science :D
Click to expand...

I already gave you reasons why there will most likely be no double layers at67P, maybe you should actually read my answers. I know, they are difficult to understand because of my rather meager aptitute in the English language, but still.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Magnetic reconnection; now, wasn't C-G Falthammar a co-author of Alfvén's on a number of occasions? What were his views on magnetic reconnection? Here are two papers of his where he explicitly talks about reconnection as if there is no problem whatsoever with it:
Click to expand...

Yes, Karl-Gunne co-authored the second edition of Alfven's "Cosmic Electrodynamics" and was director of the Alfven Institute of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, when Alfven (and I) were working there.
 
Okay, enough for now, the abfahrt in Garmisch is starting now, time to turn on the tv
 
tusenfem said:
I already gave you reasons why there will most likely be no double layers at67P, maybe you should actually read my answers. I know, they are difficult to understand because of my rather meager aptitute in the English language, but still.
Click to expand...

It's ok Martin, my wife is dutch! :thumbsup:

And...I kind of like the dutch, slim mensen!
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
How, JD116, is the magnetic field formed and sustained?

HINT

Are you starting to get the idea now?
Click to expand...

I got the idea: EU fruitloops say MR can't happen, C-G F (and many, many others) says it can. That is as much as I need to know. No need to listen to people from a Velikovskian cult, and what they might believe. Experiment and observation show them to be wrong. C-G F couldn't have been clearer about it.
I am not even sure that EU interpretations of what Alfvén said are correct. I've come across plenty who totally misunderstand what he was saying about the frozen-in concept, so why trust them on this?

In case the magnetic field varies with time, the geometry near neutral points may change in such a way that it is legitimate to speak of a 'field-line reconnection.' We cannot exclude the possibility that some of the field-line reconnection formalism may be applicable, but this remains to be proved
Click to expand...

And has been. Nobody much cares what a bunch of woo merchants have to say on the matter, 40 years on.

On Frozen-In Field Lines and Field-Line Reconnection (1976)
Alfvén, H.
(I'm sure you've got it, so I won't link it)

There is also Alfvén's table of plasma properties that I linked previously where, again, he seems to suggest it is possible under some circumstances. Don't forget, this is many decades ago, and is mostly theory. He had little, if any, observation to go on. Things have moved on. Some people haven't. The same ones as believe in electric comets and electric stars and electric cratering, and electric......well, just about everything, really.
Alfvén was a great one for expounding on the value of lab experiment, and in-situ observation by spacecraft. That is what we now have.
 
Meanwhile, over at Blunderdolts, Mozina demonstrates that after several years of being corrected, he still thinks that the term 'magnetic flux' means a change in the field.
 
Sol88: Delusion that a list of unrelated things should be called Birkeland currents

Sol88 said:
Mmmmm...galactic magnetic fields generating electric currents! ...
and why cant we just call magnetic flux ropes, force free field aligned currents, "stringy things" by what they really are BIRKELAND CURRENTS in honour of the man that discovered them?
Click to expand...
Mindlessly parroting Thunderbolts delusions? Magnetic fields alone do not generate electric currents as in your delusional EU world. It is changing magnetic fields that accelerate charges. The Scolahrbedia article does not even have the word current in it :eek:!

30 January 2017 Sol88: Delusion that a list of mostly unrelated things should be called Birkeland currents.
Magnetic flux ropes are not Birkeland currents.

30 January 2017 Sol88: A lie of Birkeland discovering "magnetic flux ropes, force free field aligned currents, "stringy things"" and even Birkeland currents :jaw-dropp!
Birkeland suggested that they existed around the Earth existed in his 1908 book.
Birkeland currents were not detected around the Earth until 1963 and recognized in 1967.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: Mindlessly repeats his delusion of double layers and comets

Sol88 said:
Ahhh...double layers!
Click to expand...
30 January 2017 Sol88: Mindlessly repeats his delusion of double layers and comets.
The claim of double layers is your personal claim based on denial of what double layers are and not supported by any science. The post you are relying to is about the lack of evidence for double layers in comets :jaw-dropp!

30 January 2017 Sol88: The stupidity of linking to the rather deluded "everythingelectric" crank web site rather than a credible source.
The site looks even more deluded than the Thunderbolts cult with EU + "expanding Earth" + anything can be a Birkeland current + Velikovsky + etc. delusions :jaw-dropp! There is a link to the
Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (basically Velikovskyian cranks). A quick look reveals dumb questions about coal
One bit of rationality: Electric Universe theory debunked
 
Last edited:
Sol88: A delusion that other people have to support his ignorant fantasies

Sol88 said:
Ok, ask Tusenfem why there would NOT be any double layers at 67P.
Click to expand...
30 January 2017 Sol88: A delusion that other people have to support his ignorant fantasies.

You have the fantasy that there are double layers at comets. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence. We have pointed out that there is no such evidence in the hard science that you remain ignorant and deluded about.

75 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 11 January 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 7 years!)

  1. 13 January 2017 Sol88: A lie that a paper is about the electric comet delusion - no electrical discharges or comets are rocks blasted from the Earth in recent times :eye-poppi!
  2. 13 January 2017 Sol88: Ignorant about an ignorant or deluded electric universe supporter he has cited before :eye-poppi!
  3. 16 January 2017 Sol88: Highlights his electric comet delusion with a citation to black holes :eye-poppi!
  4. 16 January 2017 Sol88: An attempt to waste posters time with a display of ignorance.
  5. 16 January 2017 Sol88: An irrelevant citation of the crank Donald E. Scott - a member of the deluded Thunderbolts cult :eye-poppi!
  6. 16 January 2017 Sol88: Persists with an ignorant fantasy of an "electric current from the Sun" paper.
  7. 16 January 2017 Sol88: Emphasizes his fear of trying to understand physics.
  8. 18 January 2017 Sol88: The repeated delusion that recent observations of black holes are relevant to comets!
  9. 20 January 2017 Sol88: A delusion that the evidence for the origin of comets does not exist!
  10. 20 January 2017 Sol88: Insults the content of tusenfem's paper with his ignorant electric comet delusion.
  11. 20 January 2017 Sol88: A delusion that a paper "almost" shows that 67P is negatively charged in relation to the Sun.
  12. 20 January 2017 Sol88: Lies that "fluffy dust" would be an excellent insulator as observed.
  13. 20 January 2017 Sol88: Ignorantly cites the visible spectrum Wikipedia article.
  14. 20 January 2017 Sol88: Lies about the observed fluffy dust being expected on the surface.
  15. 20 January 2017 Sol88: Thinks his persistent ignorance supports his delusion that comets are rocks.
  16. 20 January 2017 Sol88: Sticks with ignorant fantasies as support for his comets are rocks delusion.
  17. 20 January 2017 Sol88: Maybe a lie or delusion about "JD116's electromagnetic induction" (maybe just confused)?
  18. 30 January 2017 Sol88: Delusion that a list of mostly unrelated things should be called Birkeland currents.
  19. 30 January 2017 Sol88: A lie of Birkeland discovering "magnetic flux ropes, force free field aligned currents, "stringy things"" and even Birkeland currents!
  20. 30 January 2017 Sol88: Mindlessly repeats his delusion of double layers and comets.
  21. 30 January 2017 Sol88: The stupidity of linking to the rather deluded "everythingelectric" crank web site rather than a credible source.

The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 7 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
More than a year and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom